8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

With new offer in hand, ball is in players’ court | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/17/with-new-offer-in-hand-ball-is-in-players-court/)

On Monday, the NFL made a new CBA offer to the players, even though the players never responded to the last offer the NFL made.

As one of the commentors stated at the bottom....

Second offer made by the owners. That’s Owners – 2 Players – 0. Let’s hope Smith takes a step back and allows all the players to consider it.

Even in defeat, De Smith rolls out the rhetoric | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/16/even-in-defeat-de-smith-rolls-out-the-rhetoric/)

“It’s a disappointment obviously that as far as we can tell this is the first sports league in history who sued to not plays its game,” Smith told reporters after Monday’s ruling. “Congratulations.”

The players need to fire De Smith. They would be better off anyone else at this point. make the owners happy and get rid of him and find someone who will represent them better and hopefully a deal can be struck.

The league hasn’t sued anyone. The league wants to impose economic pressure on the players via a lockout, and the players decertified and filed an antitrust lawsuit in the hopes of blocking the lockout. Today’s ruling that the lockout won’t be lifted pending resolution of the appeal by the Eighth Circuit hardly represents the NFL suing to not plays its game.

Am I confused or is this writer? The owners didn't lockout until AFTER the players decertified. and basically done to protect themselves from pending law suits by the players. But I agree with the last statement that it hardly represents the NFL suing to not play games. Each is trying to get the upper hand. The players decertified in hopes it would put pressure on the owners. The owners locked out because of it. The players filed a law suit claiming the owners illegally locked out, and the owners filed suit claiming the players illegally decertified. In any event the owners might have a point. If the first act is illegal (the decertifying) then the rest is moot. If it's not illegal then the owners are in the wrong and would need to lift the lockout. Yes/No?

What I don't get is the media has laid out the options for each side if players do this the owners will do that, if the owners do this the players will do that. But each time at the end of the scenario's the owners seem to have the upper hand. So why jump through all these hoops in hopes that what? the owners will slip up and throw an agreement at you that you love? They would be better off taking Goodall out to a bar and getting him completely drunk and on tape agreeing to what they want.

Me: In Good Faith Move, Players Should Drop Law Suit.


Owners back the players into a corner. You can't expect anything less.

1) Opted out of CBA
2) Tried to illegally gain money from TV contracts during lockout to give them all the leverage financially


The people that need to show the good faith moves are the guys who started this whole shit.

SBXVII- If the NFL owners did not get money back from the players in a new CBA deal the owners were going lock out the players anyway. The NBA owners are heading the same direction. You can see that right?
They will agree to a new deal at some point.
In the mean time the supposed "financially hurt NFL owners" greed continues:


In NFL owners’ enterprise, nothing’s free - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/in-nfl-owners-enterprise-nothings-free/2011/05/16/AFW4gD5G_story.html)

Owners back the players into a corner. You can't expect anything less.

1) Opted out of CBA
2) Tried to illegally gain money from TV contracts during lockout to give them all the leverage financially


The people that need to show the good faith moves are the guys who started this whole shit.

Sorry opting out of the CBA was not an act of bad faith. It was a business decision - the owners were never in love with the CBA in the first place and had a legal right to opt out. I believe the option was unconditional and a business decision either side was free to make.

As to the TV contracts, I haven't been following that issue to closely. As such, not going to contest the issue at this point.

To me, however, the "Big Lie" is still the players decertification. The players still are acting like a union, still want a global settlement and, despite walking, talking and smelling like a union, decertified in order to circumvent the applicable labor laws.

The owners exercised a legal option in a legal fashion consistent with the intent of the applicable agreement.

The players exercised a legal option in an illegal fashion inconsistent with the underlying agreeement and with the intent to circumvent the applicable law.

The owners have since left two solid compromise offers on the table and DeA**hole Smith is still playing the "poor poor pitiful us" card.

As always in all of this, my disclaimer is that there is plenty of blame for both sides in this.

As a football fan, I hate this lock-out becasue it is interfering with my enjoyment of the football offseason and all the intrigue of roster shaping.

However, if I owned an NFL team, I would have locked the players out also. It is a business decison that should not bend to the will of the fan base (myself included as I wish it would end today). Whatever the resolution, it will affect revenues and profit margins of these clubs for years to come. Locking out the players may seem a harsh negotiation tactic, but may prove to be an effective one. Also, fast forward 5 or 10 years from now....same owners, different players. You have got to protect your future bottom line in business, even if it means alienating your current work force.

Wow, great counter offer players. Way to go, you sure you guys have never negotiated before because you guys are awesome at it, and by awesome I mean down right horrible, so bad that a 4th grader could do better, so bad that the Players would be better off sending a giraffe to negotiate on their behalf, or a Saint Bernard, everyone likes Saint Bernards.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

rpiotr01 says:
May 17, 2011 2:46 PM
Players are too emotional and competitive, which is why they’re worthless in the process of collective bargaining. It generally makes sense to turn negotiations over to lawyers, but in this case they chose the wrong kind of lawyers. Both Smith and Kessler are litigators – their world view is win or lose, no area in between. In their practices, winning meant their client might keep everything, while losing meant they might go out of business or go to jail.

They should have hired corporate lawyers instead. These people are used to negotiating deals between two parties interested in making a deal. Of course they fight for the best deal possible, but at the end of the day they know they’re there to make a deal happen, not to prevent one.

The fact that the players hired these two goons tells you everything. It was a mistake. No one on their side is emotionally capable of making a deal. They just can’t see the situation as anything other than black or white. It’s a shame, because there is an opportunity to do something right now.

They need to get their heads out of the litigation cloud and make a counter offer. Go back and forth, that’s how these things work. It’s like buying a car, you don’t get insulted when the dealer asks you to pay MSRP, you make an offer until you get something you can live with. Just please, try, that’s all anyone is asking

Sorry opting out of the CBA was not an act of bad faith. It was a business decision - the owners were never in love with the CBA in the first place and had a legal right to opt out. I believe the option was unconditional and a business decision either side was free to make.

I'm sorry, either side? Did the players have that option to opt out of the CBA? Sure they had the right, and to each his own. It's a gamble they are taking too.


To me, however, the "Big Lie" is still the players decertification. The players still are acting like a union, still want a global settlement and, despite walking, talking and smelling like a union, decertified in order to circumvent the applicable labor laws.

The players are acting like a group of collective people. It's fine if big businesses use all these loopholes to avoid tax evasion and other criminal activities, but let the workers find a loophole and BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!

The owners exercised a legal option in a legal fashion consistent with the intent of the applicable agreement.

Nope. Their whole cartel is one big Monopoly. There isn't technically anything "legal" about it. The only way it exists is because the players agree to it.

The players exercised a legal option in an illegal fashion inconsistent with the underlying agreeement and with the intent to circumvent the applicable law.

Proof? Looks like everything they've done has been legal. Have any issues about their blockade, talk to this guy.

http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu242/laurennopenz/NuteGunray.jpg

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Oh, the owners have done everything legal (even though the courts disagreed with your stance...see the TV deal as proof) but you say the players did it illegal. You sure you aren't in our White House? Sounds like some sort of sideways spin they put onto things. You can't say one is right and the other is wrong.

The owners have since left two solid compromise offers on the table and DeA**hole Smith is still playing the "poor poor pitiful us" card.

So please show me these details on the "solid compromise offers" you speak of.

As always in all of this, my disclaimer is that there is plenty of blame for both sides in this.

...and most of it goes to the guys who started this. Owners.

I'm sorry, either side? Did the players have that option to opt out of the CBA? Sure they had the right, and to each his own. It's a gamble they are taking too.To be direct: yes, the players had that right, as well.